3 ms·
Common-sense statistical distinction: It's not even necessary to posit a 'radiation-associated cancer' category to account for differential cancer increases, a
by mapt 13y ago
Common-sense statistical distinction:
It's not even necessary to posit a 'radiation-associated cancer' category to account for differential cancer increases, as long as there are some cancers somewhere that pop up in response to things other than radiation. Existence proof: Cervical cancer, associated with a virus. We would not expect cervical cancer rates to jump to the same degree as $generic-cancer, because the radiation-caused rate of cervical cancer is only a small chunk of all cervical cancers: double it and you affect the overall rate little.
With that said, airplanes are doused in some other questionable chemicals as well - I've seen concerns expressed specifically about the breakdown of fire retardants.
- thaumasiotes 13y agoThis doesn't quite work. Suppose all cancers can arise in response to radiation, or for other reasons. Then an increased dose of radiation can boost them all equally (doesn't have to, but can). And the existence of non-radiation causes for cancer is completely irrelevant. To argue that cervical cancers should jump by a smaller amount than other cancers in response to radiation, showing that cervical cancers are largely caused by something other than radiation is useless -- you need to show that other cancers are largely caused by radiation.